PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M Naglak

Publications and source records attributed to M Naglak.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Effects of the National Cholesterol Education Program's Step I and Step II dietary intervention programs on cardiovascular disease risk factors: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Plasma lipid and lipoprotein responses have been variable in dietary intervention studies. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of the National Cholesterol Education Program's Step I and Step II dietary interventions on major cardiovascular disease risk factors using meta-analysis. DESIGN: MEDLINE was used to select 37 dietary intervention studies in free-living subjects published from 1981 to 1997. RESULTS: Step I and Step II dietary interventions significantly decreased plasma lipids and lipoproteins. Plasma total cholesterol (TC), LDL cholesterol, triacylglycerol, and TC:HDL cholesterol decreased by 0.63 mmol/L (10%), 0.49 mmol/L (12%), 0.17 mmol/L (8%), and 0.50 (10%), respectively, in Step I intervention studies, and by 0.81 mmol/L (13%), 0.65 mmol/L (16%), 0.19 mmol/L (8%), and 0.34 (7%), respectively, in Step II intervention studies (P < 0.01 for all). HDL cholesterol decreased by 7% (P = 0.05) in response to Step II but not to Step I dietary interventions. Positive correlations between changes in dietary total and saturated fatty acids and changes in TC and LDL and HDL cholesterol were observed (r = 0.59, 0.61, and 0.46, respectively; P < 0.001). Multiple regression analyses showed that for every 1% decrease in energy consumed as dietary saturated fatty acid, TC decreased by 0.056 mmol/L and LDL cholesterol by 0.05 mmol/L. Moreover, for every 1-kg decrease in body weight, triacylglycerol decreased by 0.011 mmol/L and HDL cholesterol increased by 0.011 mmol/L. Exercise resulted in greater decreases in TC, LDL cholesterol, and triacylglycerol and prevented the decrease in HDL cholesterol associated with low-fat diets. CONCLUSION: Step I and Step II dietary interventions have multiple beneficial effects on important cardiovascular disease risk factors.

Body Weight↗

What to consider when conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis in a clinical setting.

More data are needed providing strong evidence that nutrition services are cost-effective. Economic evaluations, such as cost-effectiveness analyses, are excellent practice-based research projects. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis in a clinical setting to compare the cost-effectiveness of lipid-lowering medications plus diet therapy (medication + diet) with diet therapy alone (diet alone) for treating patients with hypercholesterolemia. Twenty-five adults with hypercholesterolemia (13 receiving medication + diet, 12 receiving diet alone) either participated in an 8-week, home-based, step 1 intervention or were counseled about diet and lifestyle by their care provider. Diet, cost, and laboratory data were collected at baseline, at 9 months, and at 19 months after participation in the intervention (follow-up). Cost per unit change in outcome was evaluated for each group. The diet-alone group made only small changes in dietary intake, changes that were smaller in magnitude than those made by the medication + diet group. Nevertheless, at 9 months, costs per unit change in total serum cholesterol level and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level were approximately $24 and $83 less, respectively, for the diet-alone group. At follow-up, however, the cost per unit change in LDL-C level was approximately $17 less for the medication + diet group, which can be explained by the medication + diet group's greater decrease in LDL-C level. The following elements should be considered when conducting a cost-effectiveness analysis of medical nutrition therapy: effectiveness of the nutrition intervention, adequate sample size, confounding variables, compliance with diet and drug therapy, direct and indirect costs of care, and follow-up evaluation.

Adult↗

The treatment of isovaleric acidemia with glycine supplement.

Although dietary leucine restriction and supplemental glycine are used to treat patients with isovaleric acidemia [deficient isovaleryl-CoA-dehydrogenase (E.C.1.3.99.10)], little quantitative information is available regarding their optimum relationship. Herein we compare different glycine supplements and quantitate isovalerylglycine produced in two patients with clinically different forms of isovaleric acidemia during restricted leucine intake and during oral leucine loading. We found that under stable conditions of leucine restriction, 150 mg glycine/kg/day is an optimum glycine supplement and that glycine supplements of more than 250 mg/kg/day may result in reduced isovalerylglycine production; that when isovaleric acid accumulation is increased, glycine supplements to 600 mg/kg/day will increase isovalerylglycine production; and that the phenotype of isovaleric acidemia is related not only to the extent of impaired isovaleryl-CoA dehydrogenase, but also the ability to detoxify accumulated isovaleryl CoA to isovalerylglycine.

Carbon Dioxide↗